Joe Coffman: How will border spending play out?

Monday

Mar 11, 2019 at 5:02 PM

In his first cabinet meeting of 2014, President Barack Obama was searching for ways to get his economic stimulus package past a recalcitrant Congress.

He said, “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

The pen that President Obama spoke of most certainly wasn’t his veto pen, which is a constitutional method of rejecting legislation he didn’t agree with. No, he said that the pen he was speaking of was an executive order.

He said in the same meeting: “One of the things that I’m going to be talking to my Cabinet about is how do we use all the tools available to us, not just legislation, in order to advance a mission that I think unifies all Americans.” The operative term there is “not just legislation.”

Now President Trump is embroiled in an executive order controversy of his own. The president requested from Congress several billion dollars for fence construction on the southern border. Congress gave him several billion fewer dollars. The president signed for the several billion less, then declared, by executive order, a national emergency, and is arranging to make up the difference by taking money from one pot to fill the border wall pot, which in the mind of some people, is circumventing the express will of Congress.

Waiting for legislation is something most presidents are loath to do, they are people of action, the sooner the better. The positive character trait of patience, of waiting for Congress to act in its slow and deliberate style, is not in keeping with their style.

The Founders intentionally crafted a process of making laws that was difficult and deliberative. The drafters of the Constitution put in a series of checks and balances designed to put up roadblocks. They did this because they believed limited government was good government.

So, in order for a bill to pass, it first has to pass one of the two legislative chambers, meaning the House or the Senate, where it must get through committee hearings, challenges by opponents and other procedural speed bumps to even get to a vote on the main floor.

Should the bill make it through Congress, it then goes to the president for his approval or rejection. And just for good measure, even if the bill makes it past the veto pen, Congress gets a second whack at the bill with a vote to override the president’s veto. Just for good measure, the Supreme Court has final say with its determination of whether the bill conforms to the Constitution or not.

It looks like that is the fate of this particular executive order. The way things stand now, Congress appears ready to strike down the order, the president will veto it, Congress apparently lacks the votes to override the veto, and the president has said that his administration will appeal to the Supreme Court for a ruling.

Gauging from past decisions, specifically Trump v. Hawaii, the court said the president did indeed have the authority to ban potential immigrants from specific countries. The court wrote that the order falls "squarely within the scope of presidential authority under the INA,” (Immigration and Nationality Act.)

However, this order had nothing to do with immigration, but rather falls under a category that might be called “spending.” Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution says: “All Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives …”

Congress will most likely be arguing that because they expressly limited the amount of money spent on wall building, the president's order is unconstitutional.

Will the court side with the president or Congress? It will be interesting to see.

— Joe Coffman is a Holland resident. Contact him at JCoffman4200@gmail.com.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.